Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Exploring reasons for residents’ use and
appreciation of informal urban greenspace
in Brisbane and Sapporo
Christoph Ruppr...
Typology of informal urban greenspace
Street verge Gap
Railway Brownfield Waterside
Lots
Structural Microsite Powerline
Study & location: Brisbane/Sapporo
121 sites per city on 10x10km grid
Resident IGS questionnaire
• IGS knowledge, use (as ...
Residents use and appreciate IGS
Better Both Worse Neutral
Sapporo
Brisbane
Does IGS make daily life
better or worse? (app...
Reasons behind use and appreciation?
1) What is the role of IGS for residents in
comparison to formal greenspace (e.g.
par...
IGS role compared to formal greenspace
Correlation IGS use - formal greenspace area?
Possible results:
GIS buffer analysis...
IGS is not used as substitute for parks
No correlation between IGS use and
formal GS area <500m in either city
 IGS likel...
Conceptual model: greenspace use
Socio-ecological context
of greenspace
Potential
users
Greenspace
characteristics
influen...
Different respondents – or different IGS?
Respondents seem similar:
• Appreciation of urban nature (but > in Brisbane)
• E...
Informal greenspace in study area
Sapporo Brisbane
Proportion of study area % of area % of area
Informal greenspace 4.8 6....
Proportion of IGS types compared
Lot
42%
Gap
19%
Street
verge
16%
Brownfield
10%
Waterside
10%
Other
3% Lot
8%
Street
verg...
Vegetation structure: survey method
Area covered by
vegetation layer types
(herb includes ground)
100%
ground
layer
cover
...
Vegetation structure of IGS
Sapporo Brisbane
7% 8%
43%
46%
Tree Bush Herb Ground
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
%ofIGS...
Accessibility of IGS: survey method
Two types of barriers
• Physical barriers
• Symbolic barriers
Three levels of accessib...
Accessibility of IGS: results
Sapporo Brisbane
Yes
68%
Partiall
y
22%
No
10%
Yes
78%
Partially
7%
No
15%
IGS characteristics: implications
Similarities in Sapporo & Brisbane IGS
• Amount/proportion of IGS area
• Accessibility
H...
Summary: factors behind IGS use
IGS in Sapporo and Brisbane
1. is not used as a substitute for parks
2. is similar in land...
Thank you for listening!
Questions?
Many thanks to:
Yumi Nakagawa, Jason Byrne, Hirofumi Ueda,
Jennifer Garden, Jean-Marc ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Exploring reasons for residents' use and appreciation of informal urban greenspace in brisbane and sapporo

1,264 views

Published on

Why are residents using informal urban greenspace, such as vacant lots, street verges and brownfields? Following up on my presentation last year, I compare informal greenspace to public parks and present the results of a land use survey in Brisbane (Australia) and Sapporo (Japan). This presentation was given at the Japanese GeoScience Union Meeting 2014 in Yokohama, in the session "International comparison of landscape appreciation"

Published in: Science, Travel, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Exploring reasons for residents' use and appreciation of informal urban greenspace in brisbane and sapporo

  1. 1. Exploring reasons for residents’ use and appreciation of informal urban greenspace in Brisbane and Sapporo Christoph Rupprecht PhD Candidate Environmental Futures Research Institute Griffith School of Environment Japanese Geoscience Union 2014
  2. 2. Typology of informal urban greenspace Street verge Gap Railway Brownfield Waterside Lots Structural Microsite Powerline
  3. 3. Study & location: Brisbane/Sapporo 121 sites per city on 10x10km grid Resident IGS questionnaire • IGS knowledge, use (as child or adult), appreciation • Nature attitude, demograph. • N=121/163 (Bris./Sap.) IGS land use survey • 50x50m per site • IGS, IGS type, other LU % • Combination of ground survey & aerial photography • Accessibility • Vegetation structure
  4. 4. Residents use and appreciate IGS Better Both Worse Neutral Sapporo Brisbane Does IGS make daily life better or worse? (appreciation) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% %ofrespondents Recreational IGS use Now, as adults In my childhood
  5. 5. Reasons behind use and appreciation? 1) What is the role of IGS for residents in comparison to formal greenspace (e.g. parks)? 2) What are potential factors behind the difference in IGS appreciation and use?
  6. 6. IGS role compared to formal greenspace Correlation IGS use - formal greenspace area? Possible results: GIS buffer analysis: formal GS within 500m radius of survey sites Negative correlation Low formal greenspace, high IGS use  Residents use IGS as substitute for missing green space No correlation IGS use independent of formal GS area  IGS used in addition/instead of available park space Positive correlation High formal greenspace, high IGS use  Potential bias towards frequent GS- users? 500m radius (walking distance) survey site parks
  7. 7. IGS is not used as substitute for parks No correlation between IGS use and formal GS area <500m in either city  IGS likely used in addition to, or instead of parks  IGS playing a different role for residents’ recreation than parks?  Liminal, “loose”, ambiguous character of IGS may offer possibilities parks cannot  Implications for planning, management, policy
  8. 8. Conceptual model: greenspace use Socio-ecological context of greenspace Potential users Greenspace characteristics influences Perceptions of greenspace affect shape Greenspace use choices Use Non-Use feeds back into influences Based on: Byrne & Wolch 2009, doi:10.1177/0309132509103156
  9. 9. Different respondents – or different IGS? Respondents seem similar: • Appreciation of urban nature (but > in Brisbane) • Evaluation of IGS benefits/problems • Emotional/spiritual affinity to IGS in comments • Concerns about IGS (qual. data) Examination of IGS characteristics
  10. 10. Informal greenspace in study area Sapporo Brisbane Proportion of study area % of area % of area Informal greenspace 4.8 6.3 Formal greenspace (e.g. parks, conservation) 15.4 11.6 Private greenspace (e.g. gardens, community land) 14.6 27.4 Total greenspace 35.2 45.3 • IGS in Sapporo & Brisbane survey area is not sign. different (p=.49) • IGS represents ~14% of total city greenspace in both cities
  11. 11. Proportion of IGS types compared Lot 42% Gap 19% Street verge 16% Brownfield 10% Waterside 10% Other 3% Lot 8% Street verge 80% Brownfield 5% Railway 5% Other 2% Sapporo Brisbane
  12. 12. Vegetation structure: survey method Area covered by vegetation layer types (herb includes ground) 100% ground layer cover 25% bush cover Top-down view: 40% tree cover
  13. 13. Vegetation structure of IGS Sapporo Brisbane 7% 8% 43% 46% Tree Bush Herb Ground 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% %ofIGScoveredbyvegetationlayer 28% 8% 21% 73% Tree Bush Herb Ground
  14. 14. Accessibility of IGS: survey method Two types of barriers • Physical barriers • Symbolic barriers Three levels of accessibility 1) Accessible 2) Partially accessible 3) Not accessible
  15. 15. Accessibility of IGS: results Sapporo Brisbane Yes 68% Partiall y 22% No 10% Yes 78% Partially 7% No 15%
  16. 16. IGS characteristics: implications Similarities in Sapporo & Brisbane IGS • Amount/proportion of IGS area • Accessibility High potential for variety of uses! Differences in Sapporo & Brisbane IGS • Composition of IGS types • Vegetation structure (ground/tree vs. ground/herb) Influence on appreciation? Implications for IGS management Appreciation, use & conservation?
  17. 17. Summary: factors behind IGS use IGS in Sapporo and Brisbane 1. is not used as a substitute for parks 2. is similar in land use percentage & accessibility 3. differs in IGS types & vegetation structure
  18. 18. Thank you for listening! Questions? Many thanks to: Yumi Nakagawa, Jason Byrne, Hirofumi Ueda, Jennifer Garden, Jean-Marc Hero, Alex Lo, Merrill Bowers, Mariola Rafanowicz, Brisbane Council, Sapporo City, all survey respondents Blog: www.treepolis.org Twitter: @focx Google+: Christoph Rupprecht This presentation is available @ Slideshare!

×